Instigator / Pro
9
1553
rating
77
debates
55.19%
won
Topic
#4686
It is more rational to assume the earth is flat than round without direct evidence of the earth's shape
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
0
3
After 3 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...
RationalMadman
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
21
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
For every universe that is capable of harboring advanced lifeforms, there are multiple simulations making the simulations more numerous than actual universes. Most of these simulations are primitive models of universes which aren't complete enough to harbor life, such as those humans currently make. Assuming it is easier to create advanced artificial intelligence than it is to fully model an entire universe and knowing that it takes more energy and space to model an entire universe, the second most common types of simulations are bound to NOT be entire universes but instead simulations of life/intelligence which can be made to appear like universes from the inside to an extent. Based on sheer probability we are less likely to be in a real universe than in a simulation of one and less likely to be in a fully simulated universe than a very scaled one which is created for life itself rather than life being a byproduct of the simulation. The simulation we are probably in is probably more similar to a video game map than a planet/solar system which are easy to fake in a simulation but more difficult/costly to fully model.
Con
#2
Disclaimer: I am a flat-earther. I am playing devil's advocate and am using sophisticated reasoning that those who either fully believe in Round Earth or just want to ridicule and gaslight flat earthers use. I am using appeals to authority, flawed logic and a lot of stuff like that. However, this stuff is so solid in how persuasive it is, the entire world of science stands by it. From this moment on I will fully immerse into speaking as if I totally believe what I am saying proves the Earth is Round, I will reveal how to challenge or counterargue it as a flat-earther later to those who are curious, only if it gets enough interest and they PM me or make a thread exploring it themselves first.
===========
- Astrological research and on-Earth astronomy show that when zoomed in with a telescope, other spherical planets exist. They also strongly imply that the moon is a sphere.
- Gravity cannot be explained on a flat Earth model.
- Horizons show things going over them, you can see mountain tops at times but none of the rest of the mountain.
- Airplanes and helicopters see the curvature and flight paths only make sense in the southern hemisphere on a Round Earth model.
- There are months of the year where Antarctica has 24/7 sunlight all around it, meaning it is a pole/island, not a ring.
- If we are in a simulation, as Pro says, it renders both points entirely moot. The neutrality favours Con since Pro is making the affirmative statement. Any apparent contradiction and perplexity can be explained away as the simulation tricking us either via glitch or a design feature.
- We do not have the same daylight hours around the Earth and more importantly, seasons occur. It makes sense if Earth is both rotating around itself and the sub while being on a tilt in a fixed direction (meaning the tilt does not alter despite the spinning). It does not make sense if the sun and moon are rotating in a fixed circular motion around the North pole all year round.
Round 2
Pro
#3
- Astrological research and on-Earth astronomy show that when zoomed in with a telescope, other spherical planets exist. They also strongly imply that the moon is a sphere.
In order to make this point relevant you will have to provide evidence that a real solar system or a simulated one is more likely than a flat earth simulation designed to create an illusory solar system. You ignored the point that a simulation/flat earth is more likely by default and then tried to gaslight me into dropping the point myself while appealing to the audience's presuppositions that are based on assuming NASA is trustworthy and that we aren't in a simulation by default.
- Gravity cannot be explained on a flat Earth model.
Gravity cannot be explained period. All we know is that the math can work up to a point but physicists are forced to make up particles and other excuses to actually explain it and they haven't figured out a made up mathematical model that works quite yet.
In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical quantum of gravity, an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitational interaction. There is no complete quantum field theory of gravitons due to an outstanding mathematical problem with renormalization in general relativity. In string theory, believed by some to be a consistent theory of quantum gravity, the graviton is a massless state of a fundamental string
- Horizons show things going over them, you can see mountain tops at times but none of the rest of the mountain.
Does this happen with every mountain or just certain ones? Are you going to provide photographic evidence of this happening with at least 51% of the Earth's mountains? How do you rule out when it's an optical illusion or just the terrain from a certain perspective?
- Airplanes and helicopters see the curvature and flight paths only make sense in the southern hemisphere on a Round Earth model.
You're relying on the audience to take your word for it. You're going to have to demonstrate that.
- There are months of the year where Antarctica has 24/7 sunlight all around it, meaning it is a pole/island, not a ring.
I genuinely wonder what excuse you already admitted you know for that one lol. Other than the obvious one: simulation though.
If we are in a simulation, as Pro says, it renders both points entirely moot. The neutrality favours Con since Pro is making the affirmative statement.
The neutrality favors neutrality. You are gaslighting the audience into siding with what they already were taught to think instead of examining the arguments in the context of this debate.
We do not have the same daylight hours around the Earth and more importantly, seasons occur.
So the ONLY explanation is earth = round. Of course! Except thats literally just an assumption without direct evidence.
Con
#4
Addressing the simulation 'prove it isn't' rebuttal.
The evidence is that when you see something, the default assumption is that it's real, not that it's an illusion. You are trying to take Occam's Razor and over-apply it to make your side axiomatically true but dear flat earther you have much to learn.
Inside this source you will see how Jupiter appears on an extremely effective telescope. I am unsure if it is a depiction or pure 'photo' somehow taken into the scope but this is considered 100% real by NASA.
In case you were unaware, Neptune is also ringed but its ring is just thinner than Saturns and doesn't have clutter all around it to appear as a clear-cut ring in depictions of it.
That is how Neptune looks through an extremely advanced telescope capable of seeing that far into the sky.
To suggest that these being spherical has no bearing on the shape of Earth because we are in a 'simulation' is very misleading. If we are simulated, it would be natural to assume that our Earth is a spherical planet like those we are seeing through telecopes in our sky, not that we are the only flat thing and they are just there. Pro's case is extremely counterintuitive and makes leaps in logic that do not add up.
You ignored the point that a simulation/flat earth is more likely by default and then tried to gaslight me into dropping the point myself while appealing to the audience's presuppositions that are based on assuming NASA is trustworthy and that we aren't in a simulation by default.
NASA is trustworthy, you have to prove otherwise. You have given 0 motive for them to lie so far and not explained why no other space agency or even insider astronaut with a conscience either exposed them as a competitor or as a whistleblower.
You have not explained anything about your simulation, you have told us that we are in a simulation and apparently that this default Earth to be flat.Assuming it is easier to create advanced artificial intelligence than it is to fully model an entire universe and knowing that it takes more energy and space to model an entire universe, the second most common types of simulations are bound to NOT be entire universes but instead simulations of life/intelligence which can be made to appear like universes from the inside to an extent.
Your say that it is axiomatic that simulators would be lazy and try to make things as easily as possible. On the other hand, you say they went through the extravagent effort of designing a hoax that we'd fall for due to intricate patterns in the sky that appear to be stars and planets, sun and moon rotations too and that they'd arrange for a space agency to come later on (nowhere near the start of the simulation or civlisation) to reinforce it. Even without the actual space missions of NASA, without the confirmation of the Earth being a sphere from the outside of it, we still have the ability for other astronomers whether aligned to rival agencies or standalone people that own telescopes to expose NASA for lying about what they see through it. Yet, not one has ever done so. This means that either the simulation creators are not lazy and put extremely high effort into maintaining the illusion and hoax for us or your entire axiom is wrong and we aren't even to assume we are in a simulation.
I am confused where you got the following premise from:
For every universe that is capable of harboring advanced lifeforms, there are multiple simulations making the simulations more numerous than actual universes.
This seems completely concocted out of nowhere, you never justify this core premise that you built your entire case on. You have to prove we are simulated before proving the simulators are lazy but not lazy all at once.
=======
Gravity cannot be explained period. All we know is that the math can work up to a point but physicists are forced to make up particles and other excuses to actually explain it and they haven't figured out a made up mathematical model that works quite yet.
So, for you it can't be explain period yet for all scientists it can. While we don't understand why the mass of an object leads to gravity, string theory and m-theory are on their way to explain it.
In your depicted reality we are pulled or pushed (it could be a push in your reality, yes?) down to the surface of the Earth for absolutely no physiologically perceivable reason. In the depicted reality of physics, the following is true:
Gravity is a force which tries to pull two objects toward each other. Anything which has mass also has a gravitational pull. The more massive an object is, the stronger its gravitational pull is. Earth's gravity is what keeps you on the ground and what causes objects to fall. Gravity is what holds the planets in orbit around the Sun and what keeps the Moon in orbit around Earth. The closer you are to an object, the stronger its gravitational pull is. Gravity is what gives you weight. It is the force that pulls on all of the mass in your body.
So, there is more explanation to gravity in the Round Earth model than there is to you in yours. You have this irrational magical down force that is not proportional to anything in any way nor is it explained why the simulation needs that setting. Why would lazy simulators have gravity? Why would they then let birds evolve or us to build planes, hot air baloons and paragliders etc.? It seems very contradictory.
The graviton doesn't support flat Earth theory at all because the Earth isn't a ball with the mass we say it has proportional to its gravitational pull, if there is gravity in the flat Earth model then why is it based on graviton instead of just a simulation setting like you suggested or implied in Round 1?
====
Does this happen with every mountain or just certain ones? Are you going to provide photographic evidence of this happening with at least 51% of the Earth's mountains? How do you rule out when it's an optical illusion or just the terrain from a certain perspective?
It is more likely to explicitly be visible and undeniable only with very tall and sharp mountains as opposed to more gradual and hill-like ones because you'd need to be so far that you explicitly see the top part of it and not the lower, rather than so far it all is over the horizon is too vague to specifically see.
The way to rule out the optical illusion argument is that firstly you have never proven it's an illusion and secondly there are examples where zooming in with extremely complex cameras etc does not make things appear at all.
Let me give you an example involving windmills:
Please observe this video
The windmills and way they are appearing 'above'
The problem is though even there a mirage happens. The mirage is that fake reflection you know how the windmill arms seems to float and 'reflect'? That is truly an illusion but the poking out at the exactly right distance and proportional height isn't.
Rather than spam with more photos, which you will say are due to the illusion or which have huge mountain ranges where the ones in between make it seem merged and unclear (many mountains are shallow they aren't all pointy cone type formations), I will let you prove otherwise. As in, can you please prove that things over a horizon are fake?
For instance, in this legitimate photo ^ what was the sun doing other than going over the horizon?
PLEASE WATCH THE ABOVE VIDEO OR IF PRESSED FOR TIME... Skip to just before 2 mins in to grasp the real hardhitting point.
In that video it is proven that zooming in does get back upper parts but not lower parts of things over a horizon. Even if this is partly due to a mirage effect, why is it the top is literally visible but the middle and bottom of the ship isn't? The reason oceans are used is that oceans are one of the only places in our world where nothing is between us and a faraway horizon in terms of visible blockage.
====
You're relying on the audience to take your word for it. You're going to have to demonstrate that.
I will drop that point as I am trying to avoid super-high planes or such where it's irrefutable the Earth is Round. I realise now that the debate demands that I am to state that without direct confirmation, we are to presume the round earth model over the flat earth one. The stuff you are asking for is kind of direct proof. In case you didnt know the horizon is still in place on a plane, you don't see 'more' of the sun suddenly or whatever, instead you still see it's over the curvature during sunrise and sunset but the light shows. That would not be true on flat Earth unless you can explain it. As in the sunrise and sunset you see higher up on planes and helicopters does not show the 'ball' of sun earlier it shows the light sooner (or later in contrast on sunset). This is because it really has gone over the horizon and curvature for real. There is very little proof of this as it would have to be contrasted from views below. What I am trying to explain is you can see more of everything in theory higher up, yes? Yet you can't see things actually over the curvature.
Let me make clearer what I am saying. In the Flat Earth model, you say that the sunrise and sunset are also illusions (we believe this in our scientifically verified NASA-backed super peer-reviewed model too). The illusion for us is it's actually Earth rotating around itself that primarily drives the sun's appeared movements in the sky (it's partly the Earth going around the sun too which leads to different daylight hours in different seasons). In contrast, the Flat earth model suggests that the sun is circling and out of view.
I see no rebuttal to the constant days in Antarctica.
The neutrality favors neutrality.
This means 'more likely' is false. Neutrality means equal likelihood.
Daylight hours and seasons
Pro hasn't explained how or why these function in flat Earth at all.
Round 3
Con
#6
One of the greatest diss tracks of all time (despite what you rated it, fool).
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro proposes we’re in a simulation, and if in a simulation it’s more likely the map in flat like in RTS games.
While pro is able to defend mountains due to hills, tops of windmills over the ocean have no explanation within the proposed model (same with seasonality, etc.).
Conduct for forfeiture.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro does not even mention flat in the opening. Pro does not mention rational in the opening. Pro lost it right out of the gates by not even arguing the resolution. Con's arguments were not strong, however, did include enough for deduction to show the earth is round. Conduct awarded against the forfeit.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro begins by arguing that we live in a simulation with a flat video game map. There could be a bit more reasoning here for why we should assume a flat model, but Con doesn't argue this point in the first round. Con gives seven reasons to assume the earth is round, which Pro attempts to mitigate (though Pro's main argument is that we are probably in a simulation.) Con then argues that we ought to assume the things we see are real (or that the simulation is extremely detailed) and defends his earlier points. With no response in R3 from Pro, arguments go to Con.
This type of argument is strange to me. If we’re in a simulation which tells us it’s round, why should we then dismiss what our senses inform us?
ty for the vote
By all means a pretty straightforward vote if any of you care to vote on it.
The debate is up you delectable little ding dong.
Can you challenge me to this? I'd like to debate this with you